The Pentagon will declare Thursday that it is lifting a ban on women serving in combat — a decision essentially rendered a fait accompli by more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, where many women served ably under fire. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to make the announcement, based on a recommendation from Army General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The historic change will open up hundreds of thousands of jobs in infantry, armor and other previously all-male units from which women have been formally barred under a 1994 Pentagon rule. Ultimately, they could even be allowed to serve in special-operations units, including the Army’s Delta Force and the Navy’s SEALs.

Women who missed the opportunity to serve in combat cheered the change. “All jobs should be based on qualifications, not gender,” says Battleland contributor Darlene Iskra, the first woman ever to command a Navy ship.

But the decision goes deeper than the post-9/11 wars. With an all-volunteer military, the Pentagon needs women in its ranks. Beyond that, the fluid nature of the 21st century battlefield has rendered long-ago battle maps, with a clear demarcation between front lines and rear echelons, as dated as muskets and bayonets. Basically, it has become untenable for the U.S. military to pretend its female troops are not engaged in combat.

Many women have griped that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq essentially placed them on the front lines, without getting the combat credentials often needed for promotions. Women constitute about 14% of the U.S. military’s 1.4 million active-duty personnel. While women have totaled more than 10% of those sent to war zones, they have accounted for 1.82% of those wounded and 2.26% of those who died.

Those numbers will climb as women move deeper into the combat arms. “We’ve had over 250,000 deployed and 144 given their ultimate sacrifice,” Army General Ann Dunwoody said of the post-9/11 wars, shortly before her retirement last year. “I think some of our policies are lagging and are catching up with the current employment of women,” the U.S. military’s first female four-star general added. The change is also likely to raise questions about continuing to require only males, once they turn 18, to register with the Selective Service so they can be summoned to fight, if needed, via a draft.

There is no law barring women from combat, and it remains to be seen if some in Congress try to fight to change. But the initial reaction was largely positive. Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, called it a “historic step for recognizing the role women have, and will continue to play, in the defense of our nation.” The head of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee added that since 9/11, “thousands of women already spent their days in combat situations serving side-by-side with their fellow male service members.”

With Panetta’s green light comes the tough part: ensuring there are sufficient women in uniform who want combat jobs and that they are physically capable of performing them. In the past, career-minded female officers have been more interested in that option than enlisted women.

If, as it appears will be the case, women will have to meet the same physical standards as men, that too could whittle away at the number of women eligible for combat slots. A female Marine officer caused a stir last summer when she asserted that “we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.” The only two female Marines in the corps’ infantry-officer training course the first time it was open to them last year dropped out.

A husband-and-wife Marine couple countered that the combat-exclusion policy “institutionalizes the concept that all male Marines, based on gender alone, are capable of performing duties in the combat arms, while all female Marines similarly are not.” Iskra warned that requirements should not be brandished to block otherwise qualified women. “The requirements need to be based on real requirements,” she says. “Too much in the past, height and weight requirements, for example, were used to exclude candidates who would otherwise be able to do the job.”

Battleland contributor Elspeth Ritchie, who has written about women at war, served as the Army’s top psychiatrist before retiring as a colonel in 2010. She suggests the policy change simply acknowledges reality. “We — female soldiers — were in combat,” she said Wednesday. “I came under fire. I carried a weapon. I earned three different combat patches from Somalia and Iraq. It seemed a farce to proclaim that we were not.”

Nearly a year ago, Panetta signaled that he was open to allowing women into more combat slots when he decided to allow them to serve with forward-deployed combat units in support jobs. “Women are contributing in unprecedented ways to the military’s mission,” he said last February. “We will continue to open as many positions as possible to women so that anyone qualified to serve can have the opportunity to do so.”

Despite that pledge, four women recently sued Panetta and the Pentagon, saying the ban was a “brass ceiling” hindering their advancement through the ranks.

I feel women shouldn't be in a combatant mos like infantry. The female body is weaker build wise. They have female sanitary needs. It's bad enough our male combatants have to go through the ugliness of war. Then always there will be the male to female attraction, which causes problems and men aren't the only ones starting this problem. When will females learn they have certain limits in certain ways just like men do. Don't get me wrong they can use their brains in other matters like intel or other aspects of the military.

Funny - putting women in combat roles seems to be working well enough
for Canada, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Norway, and several other
countries.

Is the Ranger course designed to provide the right skill set for the
mission, or is it designed as a muscle camp? How do Ranger skills apply
to the modern battlefield? It is physically demanding, but does it rely
on upper body strength rather than practical skills? The rope crawl
picture could be at summer camp.

The ‘could a woman carry a man?’
question assumes an isolated small woman, a large man and both are too
dumb to strip off excess equipment. It is also an ‘upper body strength
as preferred attribute’ problem.

In the 1980s, the services went
through a ‘fat boy’ purge which decimated the ranks of female officers
and enlisted. Women who didn’t conform to a specific waist to hip
formula were bounced. Not that they weren’t excellent performers, or
were obese – they just didn’t look feminine enough.

Once all the
women capable of physically competing with men were purged, the services
claimed women weren’t capable of competing with men physically. Of
course, all the competitions depended on upper body strength.

Try
this one: Place a chair or stool about 4 inches from a wall. Bend over,
with your head touching the wall. Pick up the chair. Stand up.

Males can’t do it. Their hips won’t work that way.

One standard, one tab. But make sure the standards are useful, practical and meet the requirements of the mission.

As a retired Infantry Officer, I think that the female soldiers are not fit for combat. It is not only strength and endurance, which is required in rugged terrain conditions but it is nerves. Allah has created women as sweet and saltish as compared to men. The scenes of people dying, blood and human limbs are shattering for females. Male soldiers on the other hand can sustain this pressure and perform. Safdar<www.researchome.com>

You need to look into why you are fighting for Israel land grabs, but Israel Mossad (demo) agents, some dressed as muslims, were the only people arrested in new york on 9/11 for their activities. That don't add up, and you don't have to be a math scholar to get it.

Amazing that the jew slaves can listen to all the jew propaganda. It doesn't even state that murdering psychopaths are a danger to society, just trying to brainwash you that sane people kill everything (for their invisible friends from Israel). Actually trying to convince you people should be psychopaths. No wonder you are all mentally deranged. Too much tv and time propaganda. Turn off the tv children. Its exposed these people who make time only here to brainwash you. They brainwash their American slaves in specific, give you dumbed down Magazine covers so you don't think too much. Enjoy Ben Shalom Bernake reducing the size of those food packages for Israel land grabs!

Every change that I want to make is fine unless you can show catastrophic damage within one year. The burden of proof is on you.

What would happen if a scientist acted that way?

Liberals just plow ahead by changing things that have always been. This is a sign that our leadership is taking us over a cliff. Well, I mean taking you over a cliff but not me. I just moved out of the US.

I run a blog on emerging risks. Women in combat is the last thing we should be thinking about. Based on what I'm seeing, you should be real worried about nuclear war. 1913intel.com

I would urge all readers to google the testimony of the late Col. John Ripley, USMC, as well as his statement before congress concerning the role of women in combat. His point that American female soldiers taken captive would be treated as sex toys, not soldiers, is indictment enough alone to warn against this tragic action. The US has not fought a single enemy that honored the Geneva Convention in half a century or more, and our enemies today clearly view it with utter contempt. Essentially, the desire of a handful of women to achieve politically-useful command rank, is going to require the deaths and grievous wounding of hundreds of thousands of the traditional nurturers of our society.

Women should not be in combat. I was in a marine infantry unit and fought in Iraq for 3 tours and 1 in Afghan before getting out of the military. I've seen how people react in combat and cant even fathom how bad a women would handle the situation of someone getting shot right next to them. I've been there and done that. We carried over 70 lbs of gear on us at a time usually while in combat. For many women that is half or more than half of their body weight. The fact that they could be captured, tortured, and raped is a whole different story as well. The women need to be able to meet the same demands that the men do. I know in my unit we would go on humps (or hikes) for 20+ miles with well over 100lbs of gear on going at a min. of a 3 mph pace. I honestly don't think any women could do this.

As for people mentioning other countries allowing women to fight directly in combat, how many of those countries are actually at war? Or have been at war in the last 10-20 years? Not many. Just because some countries do it doesn't make it right. I don't think its worth lowering our standards to allow women to participate in war. They think it's something glorious because of stupid movies, just like boys signing up straight out of high school. In reality, war is horrible. I know from experience.

Currently,
more than 26 countries allow women in direct combat, including
Canada, New Zealand, Britain, Australia, Norway and Germany.

In addition,
Israel, Turkey, Norway, Russia, Poland, India, China, Afghanistan,
Korea and Britain have females in Special Ops. The U.S. just opened
up Task Force 160, an aviation special ops force, to women.

Military wording , shattering the brass ceiling . or more like abandoned military Veterans with shattered minds and cardboard boxes for a ceiling , male or females destroyed alike after shattering their lives for , Wall st. , the Banks or maybe the ponzi scheme , The federal reserve ..pick a Ceiling .

A man can carry another man of equal or greater weigh that is unable to move on his own because of injuries. Will a woman be able to do that? Or are we putting that injured male soldier at risk of losing his life for the sake of equality?

It's a wonderful thing that that has been shouted and celebrated throughout every part of history, when a Man is prepared to sacrifice for what he believes in, to fight those that would destroy. Why is it hard for society to see it the same way for Women?

When a Woman says "i am prepared to fight, sacrifice and die to protect those around me" i will happily give her a weapon and trust her to guard my back while i guard hers. If she struggles i'll help her, because i know well that i will struggle at some time and she will help me.

Male or Female, if they are willing to fight to protect their own, who are we to stop them?

Drones before women . Panetta the coward allowing more abuse to our women in service , as if verbal , mental and physical abuse by American male soldiers isn't enough pressure on American women fighting a corrupt Oil for blood war .

This is an historic event alright, but it has absolutely nothing to do with equal opportunity for women. The military is running out of male soldiers to send into combat, so now it's the women's turn to get blown up.

We have women flying F-18s, we probably have women directing aircraftcarrier flight decks (which is one of the deadliest jobs), we have women that can fire torpedos and fire missles. We have women in the Coast Guard fighting drug dealers. We have women stopping drunks and getting shot on duty as police right here in the good ol'USofA. No woman is going to qualify for special forces.

So, given those facts I hear a bunch of folks with their panties in a twist because a relative handful of women think that the best way to a higher rank and pay is through being a grunt in the infantry. Obviously an F-18 pilot wasn't an option for them. Few will go into the infantry, fewer will qualify, even fewer will stick it out as a career... so why don't you all step back off the ledge.

She
was a female Soviet Infantry Sniper, She didn't enjoy killing men,
but it was her job, so she kept at it. But, in situations like the
Liberation of Warsaw, everything was close range, so she was firing
submachine guns, machine guns, and antitank weapons.

Later,
near the Vistula River, she was operating a machine gun emplacement.
After the war, an interviewer asked if she had been trained on the
machine gun:

"No,
we were already experienced. We could do everything on our own. And
then, we had good eyesight, and skills. After all, we had graduated
from a sniper school.

One
male soldier was killed there. He sat there very sad, he probably
felt that he would die. He wouldn't come to the embrasure (the
defensive structure) or the machine gun."

Here
is a case where the women are fighting, and the man is
psychologically unable to do so.

On
the 14th of August 1942, Natalya Kovshova's regiment was committed to the
fighting near the village of Sutoki-Byakovo in the Novgorod Region.
The machine gunners and snipers resisted the German offensive in
trenches. The Russian soldiers were killed one after another. Natalya
was one of the few remained alive She was wounded. She decided to
pull the pin of her grenade, and wait to blow the German soldiers up
when they reached the trench.

When
the Germans finally reached the trench, Natalya detonated the
grenades, killing herself and many German soldiers. She was
posthumously awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union shortly after, in
recognition of her sacrifice.

@thewholetruth Thats why women are super violent and manipulative? Yah, they will only engage in combat against people they think wont hurt them. You sound like one of them giving your manipulative crap out now.

This is partially true....we don't have enough guys, so women have had to do it...but it's also a reflection of how great some of our women are, and we are realizing that we are decreasing our military effectiveness by not letting them fight.

@atpcliff@t5o1m Ahh yeah and American women are just as crude as Russian women? Note there's a difference between some countries women and cultures. I forget what country it is but women put metal tubes around their necks to elongate the neck. Would an American women even try this? NO. Also they didn't mention if that Russian female soldier was on 20 mile hikes with 70-100 lbs of gear and keeping up with the platoon. She actually used good reason for blowing up the germans and herself. She knew she would have been raped even if she did live from her wounds.

@atpcliff@raidx259 Yeah right, a woman can't pick up a 200lbs guy over her shoulders like another man can.

Yes they can drag a guy a few feet, but if you were wounded in combat and full of shrapnel, who do you think is going to get you to safety soonest? In combat a few seconds can make the difference between life and death. If you think a woman can do this as quickly as a man, you are delirious.

@Mr.357@raidx259 That's nonsense 357. You are blinded by your convictions. A woman can't pick up a 200lbs guy over her shoulders like another man can.

Yes they can drag a guy a few feet, but if you were wounded in combat and full of shrapnel, who do you think is going to get you to safety soonest? In combat a few seconds can make the difference between life and death. If you think a woman can do this as quickly as a man, you are delirious.

That has already happened. Women ARE allowed to compete in the NFL...it's just that none of them (so far) have met the minimum physical standard to do it. Combat has been different. There have been women who have met the minimum standards, but have NOT BEEN ALLOWED in combat. That is bu!!sh!t.

I am not in the NFL, because of my physical limitations, and I am a guy. Does that mean that no guys are in the NFL???

@VincentLovece@TomDenson Why not? Only a small percentage of men are able to do the job of an elite athlete, i dare say say the percentages are the same once we get passed the sexual divide. And as we see in the Olympics women are not far behind at all, i think they would bring just as much entertainment to the sport as they would honour to the military.

@atpcliff Perhaps, but I heard on NPR that special forces like the Navy Seals are excluded from the obligation to test women for qualification. I suppose that doesn't mean they can't be flying the transport helicopter.